Do Mormons beleive there were/are gods before God?

[Porknpie]

So Brigham Young here is talking about our first and second estates.

Janderich,

BY said this of the Sun :

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of this planet.

How do you discern when he telling the truth and not?

PnP

 

[MattofTexas]

We most certainly do. Between modern revelation stating that the elements are eternal and scholarly research showing that the doctrine of “creatio ex nihilo” is an early theological innovation, what other conclusion could we possibly draw?

Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.

James N. Hubler, “Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 107–8

Could any of the Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox on this thread address this dissertation quote? I was always under the impression Judaism, the New Testament, and the Church Fathers taught creation from nothing? Is there scholarship to support this view? Is the quote wrong, or just a fringe view ?

 

[Porknpie]

Could any of the Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox on this thread address this dissertation quote? I was always under the impression Judaism, the New Testament, and the Church Fathers taught creation from nothing? Is there scholarship to support this view? Is the quote wrong, or just a fringe view ?

Creation is seen both in scripture and the apostolic faith. As an example, Jesus taught St. John, St John taught Polycarp, and Polycarp taught St Irenaeus of Lyons, a Catholic Bishop, who in taking on the heretics said (source here)

Chapter X.-Perverse Interpretations of Scripture by the Heretics: God Created All Things Out of Nothing, and Not from Pre-Existent Matter.

1. It is therefore in the highest degree irrational, that we should take no account of Him who is truly God, and who receives testimony from all, while we inquire whether there is above Him that [other being] who really has no existence, and has never been proclaimed by any one.For that nothing has been clearly spoken regarding Him, they themselves furnish testimony; for since they, with wretched success, transfer to that being who has been conceived of by them, those parables [of Scripture] which, whatever the form in which they have been spoken, are sought after [for this purpose], it is manifest that they now generate another [god], who was never previously sought after. For by the fact that they thus endeavour to explain ambiguous passages of Scripture (ambiguous, however, not as if referring to another god, but as regards the dispensations of [the true] God), they have constructed another god, weaving, as I said before, ropes of sand, and affixing a more important to a less important question. For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest, and consistent and clear.
2. But these [heretics], while striving to explain passages of Scripture and parables, bring forward another more important, and indeed impious question, to this effect, "Whether there be really another god above that God who was the Creator of the world? "They are not in the way of solving the questions [which they propose]; for how could they find means of doing so? But they append an important question to one of less consequence, and thus insert [in their speculations] a difficulty incapable of solution. For in order that they may know “knowledge” itself (yet not learning this fact, that the Lord, when thirty years old, came to the baptism of truth), they do impiously despise that God who was the Creator, and who sent Him for the salvation of men. And that they may be deemed capable of informing us whence is the substance of matter, while they believe not that God, according to His pleasure, in the exercise of His own will and power, formed all things (so that those things which now are should have an existence) out of what did not previously exist, they have collected [a multitude of] vain discourses. They thus truly reveal their infidelity; they do not believe in that which really exists, and they have fallen away into [the belief of] that which has, in fact, no existence.
3. For, when they tell us that all moist substance proceeded from the tears of Achamoth, all lucid substance from her smile, all solid substance from her sadness, all mobile substance from her terror, and that thus they have sublime knowledge on account of which they are superior to others,-how can these things fail to be regarded as worthy of contempt, and truly ridiculous? They do not believe that God (being powerful, and rich in all resources) created matter itself, inasmuch as they know not how much a spiritual and divine essence can accomplish. But they do believe that their Mother, whom they style a female from a female, produced from her passions aforesaid the so vast material substance of creation. They inquire, too, whence the substance of creation was supplied to the Creator; but they do not inquire whence [were supplied] to their Mother (whom they call the Enthymesis and impulse of the Aeon that went astray) so great an amount of tears, or perspiration, or sadness, or that which produced the remainder of matter.
4. For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason], and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that “the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.”** While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence. **But the assertion that matter was produced from the Enthymesis of an Aeon going astray, and that the Aeon [referred to] was far separated from her Enthymesis, and that, again, her passion and feeling, apart from herself, became matter-is incredible, infatuated, impossible, and untenable.

Irenaeus is not making anything up, rather he is preaching the Word of God, handed down from the apostles.

Here’s a short tract from Catholic.com on the subject.

Pnp

 

[Janderich]

Janderich,

BY said this of the Sun :

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of this planet.

How do you discern when he telling the truth and not?

PnP

By the power of the Spirit. If I am in tune and need to know the Spirit will speak plainly. At any rate, I am much more worried about rejecting something of eternal importance then believing a minor falsehood. If I am not given to understand it, rather than condemn it I find it is often best to withhold judgment. I then can consider it from time to time and often may be given the truth of it at a future date. Joseph Smith once said, “I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;” which I cannot subscribe to.” I feel the same.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Joseph Smith once said, “I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;” which I cannot subscribe to.” I feel the same.

Except that is not a valid assessment of creeds. Creeds are merely statements of faith (in the liturgy it is called the “profession of faith”). The word “creed” comes from the Latin “credo”, meaning “I believe”, which is how various creeds start (i.e. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty…). The Articles of Faith of the LDS Church are, for all intents and purposes, a creed (indeed, most of the articles start out with “We believe”). All religions have core beliefs that define that religion. A creed is a summary of some of those beliefs. One can learn a lot about what Catholics believe by reading the Nicene Creed, just like how one can learn much of what LDS believe by reading the Articles of Faith.

 

[Porknpie]

By the power of the Spirit. If I am in tune and need to know the Spirit will speak plainly. At any rate, I am much more worried about rejecting something of eternal importance then believing a minor falsehood. If I am not given to understand it, rather than condemn it I find it is often best to withhold judgment.

Interesting. My sense is that most non-Mormons would reason that if BY could error on one teaching that he could error on other teachings. He did say that regarding people living on the sun that there was “no question of it.” Well, we know that without question, that he was wrong. Similarly, Joseph Smith taught that the American Indians were from the Middle East. We know that he was wrong too, through genetic science, we know that they are from Asia.

How do you know if you are “in tune”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

We most certainly do. Between modern revelation stating that the elements are eternal and scholarly research showing that the doctrine of “creatio ex nihilo” is an early theological innovation, what other conclusion could we possibly draw?

Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.

James N. Hubler, “Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 107–8

“In one relatively recent doctoral dissertation, which, disappointingly, provides very comparatively little–and rather selective–examination of biblical texts, James Noel Hubler (following [Gerhard] May’s work at many points) declares that creation ex nihilio not only “appeared suddenly in the latter half of second century CE” but also “lacked precedent”: This doctrine was “an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition”. This, we shall see, is not overstated; it is plainly false.”

“…] the church fathers–even apart from the theological disputations they were involved in–held to the same assumptions that the biblical authors did: God alone is everlasting to everlasting, which necessarily precludes the eternal metaphysical dualism of God and matter/chaos. As patristics scholar Eric Osborne argues, May’s arguments fail to distinguish between concepts and words: while the words “creation out of nothing” May not be articulated in Scripture or by the early church fathers, the concept of creation from nothing undergirds their assertions.” (“Creation Out of Nothing: a Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration”, Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, 2004)

 

[RebeccaJ]

By the power of the Spirit. If I am in tune and need to know the Spirit will speak plainly. At any rate, I am much more worried about rejecting something of eternal importance then believing a minor falsehood. If I am not given to understand it, rather than condemn it I find it is often best to withhold judgment. I then can consider it from time to time and often may be given the truth of it at a future date. Joseph Smith once said, “I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;” which I cannot subscribe to.” I feel the same.

You attempt to make a distinction where there is none. The Holy Spirit has never been absent from the catholic faith. Professions of belief are found in the NT, and are given as a witness of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Do you reject them because they have “set up stakes”?

The creeds are professions of faith, one witness of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the ages.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 8:6[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 12:3[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:4[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[LivingWaters7]

: A Critique of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation by William Lane CraigCreatio ex nihilo

It should also be noted that creatio ex nihilo does not exclude the belief that God created certain things from matter (for example, the earth could have been formed out of “the waters”). This position would then go a step further and say that the pre-existing matter that God used was ultimately created by Him ex nihilo, since “all things” were created by God.

 

[Janderich]

Except that is not a valid assessment of creeds. Creeds are merely statements of faith (in the liturgy it is called the “profession of faith”). The word “creed” comes from the Latin “credo”, meaning “I believe”, which is how various creeds start (i.e. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty…). The Articles of Faith of the LDS Church are, for all intents and purposes, a creed (indeed, most of the articles start out with “We believe”). All religions have core beliefs that define that religion. A creed is a summary of some of those beliefs. One can learn a lot about what Catholics believe by reading the Nicene Creed, just like how one can learn much of what LDS believe by reading the Articles of Faith.

Sure creeds are statements of faith and we could argue about whether the articles of faith are creeds. But the truth of the statement remains. While a creed can help define a faith it also places limits on belief. This can be true of LDS as well as the Catholic religion. The problem is, these statements can narrow a persons view. It causes them to filter everything they read, everything they hear, through these lenses. Even when the Spirit testifies of truth the belief is rejected. I am not speaking solely of non-LDS religions. I have encountered some ideas or statements within my own religion I have found to be false. I think this is one of the reasons why the LDS church does not nail down its doctrine on some issues, and I for one am thankful for it.

Very well call the belief system what you will. The truth of the statement remains. There are certain bounds which cannot be crossed. I cannot believe that God is an exalted man and still call myself Catholic.

 

[Janderich]

You attempt to make a distinction where there is none. The Holy Spirit has never been absent from the catholic faith. Professions of belief are found in the NT, and are given as a witness of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Do you reject them because they have “set up stakes”?

The creeds are professions of faith, one witness of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the ages.

I would never dare say the Holy Spirit was absent from members of the Catholic church nor other God fearing churches. This is clearly not the case.

However, you must see that even scripture can be twisted to define a false belief. And this false belief grows, it sets bounds, it restricts the testimony of the spirit. In some way shape or form this false belief will prevent a person from approaching God.

 

[rmcmullan]

Maybe this ought to be another thread but this one made me think on if the problem is that Mormons claim the Father was once a man: If Jesus hadn’t been made flesh, he’d still be God, right? Isn’t the problem just the old Godhead vs. Trinity problem here?

 

[TexanKnight]

Thanks for the responses so far. So when you talk about intelligences, is this sort of like a pre-spirit…spirit? I know Joseph Smith taught that there’s no such thing as immaterial matter, so is this like the matter spirits are made of? If so how did it get organized into spirits given that spirits are born through intercourse between a god and goddess? Also is intelligence personal? Is it a being, or a type of matter?

Also just to verify I understand correctly, the LDS believe:

1. All matter and intelligence are eternal, without beginning or end.
2. All men, angles, gods, etc. are comprised of said eternal matter and intelligence and thus can be said to be eternally existing, but NOT eternally in the form they now have.
3. Through a progression of spiritual births, creations, physical births, marriages, and exultations many gods have been made and given rise to new worlds and beings, that are formed out of the eternal elements and intelligences, but newly formed in their current form.
4. Heavenly Father lived as a man as part of this process, His eternal intelligence was born first as a spirit and then as a mortal man, was subject to His own father god, and through His obedience to the principals of the gospel was exulted to godhood, where he continues to progress in power, glory, and wisdom.
5. It is the destiny of man, as the offspring of a god, to become gods, if men so merit it by accepting the grace offered through the atonement of Christ and live according to the teachings of the (LDS) church and her prophet.

In short, although the basis of everything may be eternal (matter and intelligence) with regard to beings:
-There are many gods beside ours.
-There were many gods formed before ours.
-There will be many gods formed after ours (in the future), presumably including some of us and those people’s spiritual offspring.

Is this all a correct statement of LDS teachings?

don’t forget that god used to be a sinful man. and that god had actual sex with Mary

 

[Janderich]

Interesting. My sense is that most non-Mormons would reason that if BY could error on one teaching that he could error on other teachings. He did say that regarding people living on the sun that there was “no question of it.” Well, we know that without question, that he was wrong. Similarly, Joseph Smith taught that the American Indians were from the Middle East. We know that he was wrong too, through genetic science, we know that they are from Asia.

How do you know if you are “in tune”?

Your last question is a hard one to get across to other people. The Book of Mormon says, “for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth being to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand” (Alma 32:34). I’m sure you have felt the same. Your understanding begins to increase. But not only this, your new knowledge become precious and deeply significant. Sometimes you want others to feel it but it is not given them of the spirit and it falls flat.

 

[Stephen168]

Joseph Smith once said, “I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;” which I cannot subscribe to.” I feel the same.

By pulling up stakes, Joseph Smith led his people into polytheism; he led them into apostasy.
By pulling up stakes, Brigham Young led his people to believe Adam was God, and Christ’s atonement was not enough for some sins; he led them into apostasy.

The creed and foundation of the Catholic Church has prevented the apostasy of the Church started by Christ over 2000 years ago.

 

[Stephen168]

If Jesus hadn’t been made flesh, he’d still be God, right?

Do Mormons believe that Jesus was a god and then was do longer a god after the incarnation?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Do Mormons believe that Jesus was a god and then was do longer a god after the incarnation?

Nope!
In Mormon theology, Jesus is just like us, one of “Heavenly Father” 's
Spirit Children, and that Jesus became a god after his death, which of
course is our calling as well, to become a god.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Maybe this ought to be another thread but this one made me think on if the problem is that Mormons claim the Father was once a man: If Jesus hadn’t been made flesh, he’d still be God, right? Isn’t the problem just the old Godhead vs. Trinity problem here?

Well I do think the problem, from the orthodox perspective, is the idea that the Father was once a man. But it isn’t just that He was once a man, since orthodox Christians believe that Christ became man (and retains His human nature). It is the idea that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. Such an idea is untenable in orthodox Christianity, since it teaches that God has eternally been God, and has eternally existed as three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Further, it opens up the idea that there were men in existence somewhere before God created man.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

don’t forget that god used to be a sinful man. and that god had actual sex with Mary

Ah, this brings be back to an earlier post in a different thread quite a while ago:

Well, as the Joseph’s mythos goes, we are all Spirit Children of the Mormon God, who
himself was once a man like us but became God and begot us through his many wives.

Now it is said that our Spirit Brother Jesus needed a body to fulfill his purpose, whatever
that is in Mormonism, so the Mormon God came down to have sex with the Virgin Mary.

Keeping in mind about that “Premortal Existence”, that we were all spirit children, uh…
Mormon God got it on with his spirit daughter, a little disturbing, the LDS have no re-
deeming doctrine behind that, try as they might:

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus,
according to the flesh, must have been associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary
must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful wife, because it
would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully…
He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a Son…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I would never dare say the Holy Spirit was absent from members of the Catholic church nor other God fearing churches. This is clearly not the case.

However, you must see that even scripture can be twisted to define a false belief. And this false belief grows, it sets bounds, it restricts the testimony of the spirit. In some way shape or form this false belief will prevent a person from approaching God.

Well, why are you LDS? From my view it is because you have accepted a false interpretation of scripture and can’t let it go.

Catholics have a strong sense of protecting the faith that has been handed on. I see that as a good thing, otherwise the faithful will be and are, led.away by false.prophets and novel ideas. People are attracted to novelty.

The Church is the firm rock, a pillar of truth. The ever changing sands of Mormonism hold no.appeal to me